freecivfandomcom-20200223-history
Design Log.mp2
'Multiplayer-Evolution Ruleset (MP2) Design Log' Other MP2 resources: *''click here for'' Multiplayer II Game Manual *''click here for'' Multiplayer II Summary - a synopsis list of MP2's changes over MP1 *''click here for'' Game Play Overview *''click here for'' [[Multiplayer_II_Design_Summary|'MP2 Design Manifesto']] - guiding principles, etc., of contributors working on this branch. 'DESIGN LOG and DETAIL LIST' AND REASONS FOR ADJUSTMENTS: 'I. Technologies' '1. Tech costs changed.' Explanation: Formerly, a formula did tech costs. It did well until late-game, then tech pace rapidly surpassed game pace. Effect: First techs cost 4 bulbs less (28–4 =24). Next techs are unchanged until Democracy/Gunpowder. Generally, bulb costs go up 25% at Democracy/Gunpowder and +5% for each major tier after. (Stealth is +50%). The result of this is that after mid-game, new units can be featured, used, and played for a short while, before going obsolete. '2. Voyage of Darwin' Explanation: Changed to increase Trade like Colossus. Cost: 200 shields. Philosophy and Darwin could finish the tech tree on 0% science. Some players wanted Darwin gone or One-player-only. Player-only awards from Great Wonders and Huts were long ago forbidden from Multiplayer design principles to eliminate “ruleset luck” from deciding the game. The solution is to make Darwin do something else. Darwin becomes a replacement for Colossus going obsolete, and represents a breakthrough in trade, science, technology, and products. Effect: Previously, most late-game tech was not being used: new tech too rapidly replaced old tech. Now, the stages of late-mid-, early-late-, late-, and end-game are exciting new phases of the game that can actually be experienced and enjoyed. 3. Restricted Abuse of Philosophy Gives a free advance but coalition abuse is curbed. Free tech awarded if discovered before Turn 85 (death of Socrates), but only if the player has none of the following: Industrialization, Electricity, Conscription. Explanation: This was the only solution that succeeded in preserving different styles of play while not destroying original Multiplayer balance. Loners and purists unaware of MP's re-balance wanted to restrict Philosophy bonuses. This faction disliked how Philosophy accelerated the late-game with “gangs of backwards nations” discovering more advanced techs than nations with scientific infrastructure. However, players familiar with the original MP know that “Philosophy for Everyone” was an important re-balance for lost trade routes to sustain mid-game pace. Other proposals failed to accurately upgrade the Multiplayer experience for all players and styles of play. This was the only proposed solution which met requirements to balance all the points above. We must keep in mind that the majority of players in the world of massive multiplayer, as well as noobs and late-joiners, use Philosophy as a diplomatic bargaining chip to be relevant and get influence, alliance, and protection. It lets them have a chance to survive so they can learn to play, and it keeps the community growing. It increases cooperation, diplomacy, and interaction in the game. Effect: Before 400BCE (T85), Philosophy gives bonus tech only if you do not have any of the 3 techs needed for “mid-game.” This prevents abuse and allows Philosophy to be used as intended. It keeps diplomatic scheming and slinging that add strategy, surprise, fun, and depth. An extremely important Multiplayer design decision is preserved: to use Philosophy and Marco Polo to compensate lost trade routes. Game notifications begin warning players of the coming expiration on T79. '4. Space Flight gives a vision bonus.' Unit and city vision increase. Explanation: Originally, the Apollo Wonder gave full vision, but it was removed from Multiplayer because it was OP for only a single nation out of 50+ nations to get this power. The excitement of Space Age tech left the game. Effect: In the very late game, there is now incentive to discover Space Flight to gain better vision. In ultra-late game this introduces the excitement of satellite surveillance technology, as originally intended. '5. Electricity removes Fog of War inside your own borders.' Explanation: Electricity allows for lights. Now you can see. Effect: A nice bonus is given to mid-game tech, making the game more interesting and diverse. 'II. Units' '1. Vision adjustments' Made to bring Vision/Movement ratio closer to 1:1 like in 1x ruleset. Explanation: The ratio of vision/movement affects game play and tactics. Rulesets higher than 1x movement typically adjust vision upwards in order to preserve proportional balance. Consider the ability to see a unit which is 1 turn away from being able to attack. An increase in vision of 1.4x is awarded by default, with Physics historically enabling the use of telescopes and binoculars to provide full 2x vision. 2x vision makes the vision/movement ratio the same as the 1x movement ruleset. Effect: '' A typical 2mv unit now has 1.4x vision instead of 1x. Physics brings it to 2x. The ability to see where you're going or to anticipate the arrival of enemy units is now more in line with the balanced proportions of the original rules. Please note there are also vision bonuses from Forts, Mountains, Lighthouse, and Space Flight. '2. Restrictinfra re-balance. '''Enemy rails only act like roads, while roads can still be used by all. OPTIONAL SETTING. Explanation: A 'middle ground' compromise to restrictinfra was achieved. Previously, our choice was between two extremes. Some claimed that it's ridiculous for armies to travel the world at light speed conquering dozens of nations in a single turn. Different nations like Russia, China, Europe, and the Americas have incompatible rails and can disable a rail if an enemy intends to use it. Others claim that making enemy rails and roads act like they don't even exist, was extremely unrealistic and also begging for stalemated late-games. Both sides were right. Behold the holy grail: the sweet spot in the middle. Effect: Late game strategy was dominated by paranoia over rail systems. Rail invasions ended the game right as players were getting to “the good part of the game.” Now there is an option. (Restrictinfra=OFF preserves Classic behavior settings.) '3. Railroad move speed ' Changed to 9x, Maglevs available with Superconductors for unlimited moves. Explanation: It can be ridiculous for armies to travel the world at light speed. Railroads are now given a more than generous 9x, which is three times faster/farther than roads. Meanwhile, the Maglev terrain improvement was imported from Civ2civ3, because: 1) It gives purpose to an empty late game technology, 2) In a true “final end game”, it speeds up victory for winning powers and helps break stalemate, 3) Fans of infinite movement rails still get to have them, just later. Effect: Rails remain more than good for rapid transport needs. Ultra-late Maglevs impart advantages to break stalemates. '4. Bribe cost ' ½ cost correctly adjusted to include all non-military civilian units, not just Settlers. Explanation: Bribing civilians is easier than bribing military forces. The ½ bribe cost rule goes all the way back to when Settlers were the only civilian unit. Failure to properly port the “Unit Flag” resulted in Workers having the same bribe costs as military units. Obviously, in reality, the most bribeable unit of all is an underpaid worker. Effect: Workers wandering far from home are realistic bribe targets again. '5. Mountain Vision' Land Units on a mountain can see +1 tile. Effect: This provides a bit more realism and tactical interest to the game. It also slightly patches the 1.4:2 Vision/Movement ratio in the early game, but making it tactical instead of taken for granted. '6. Nukes get 24 movement points.' Explanation: Cost of a unit is based on its power. For a Nuke, range and 'threat area' are not linear. Compared to other units, a Nuke's “threat area” is a much stronger component of its overall power. Giving nukes 2x moves would give them 4x the threat area (A=πr2). 24 moves give the Nuke a 1.5x increase in range and a 2.25x increase to targeted area. Right between 1.5x and 2.25x is 2x, which is the balance point we're looking for in a 2x ruleset. Effect: Nukes can reach 2.25x more area than in classic Freeciv. '7. Knights given two bonuses' To restore value and re-balance the ”new” introduction of Elephants/Crusaders. Explanation: Two reasons led to the Knight getting two small bonuses: 1. The Knight used to be the first mobile unit who attacked at 4, but then Classic ruleset added Elephants with similar strength but available far sooner. Polytheism then led straight to Monotheism, which upgrades Elephants to Crusaders while giving strong economic benefits. This "orphaned" Chivalry's place in the tech tree. 2. Since ruleset coding did not distinguish a separate class of foot units, mounted units' superiority against foot units had been coded as higher general attack strength. But a defending Knight who is also mounted should do far better than 6% survival against another Knight, since they are both on horseback. Effect: To restore Knights to relevance and balance, two small bonuses were given. This doesn't change how Knights relate to most units. 1. Knights defend at 3 against mounted units. This gives an equal chance of survival when attacked by a more primitive Chariot, and 26% against an attacking Knight. 2. Because of their historical noble status and vows, bands of Knights had the discipline and integrity to attack towns without pillage and murder; this virtue often swayed allegiance by the citizens. Therefore, the Knight can attack towns without population reduction. (Cities still lose 1 population when changing ownership, however.) '8. Bribe and Sabotage bug fix.' Aircraft, nukes, helicopters, and missiles can't be bribed or sabotaged. Explanation: Developers made an “Unbribable” flag to fix this bug, but Classic and Multiplayer never received the fix. Effect: You can no longer bribe a nuke or cruise missile and turn it around to go attack the city it came from. 9. OneAttack flag deprecated OA-flag deprecated after a series of historical developments rendered it totally dysfunctional. Explanation: To understand the necessity of this change requires a long history lesson in different versions of Civ and Freeciv. This issue is deep enough to fill pages, but we'll try to summarize it in one page. One paragraph Synopsis. What went wrong with “OneAttack” (OA)? OA was an over-correction to high-move/high-attack units in a turn-based simultaneous-move environment. Developers knew this and did fixes on non-classic rulesets, but Multiplayer ruleset didn't receive any. Years later, changes to the server and the play-mechanics made a poor solution totally dysfunctional. OA-units needed a complete overhaul. After finally deprecating OA, each unit must be tested to tune a proper balance that is neither under-powered nor OP. A Brief History of how OA-units got sick then died. Freeciv has a fundamental built-in contradiction in its mechanics: it is both simultaneous-move and turn-based. This creates fundamental issues. Through regulation they are improvable but not solvable. One can attempt to regulate and reduce problems while improving fair playability. The ancient OA-flag is such an attempt. In an environment that is both turn-based and simultaneous, some felt that units may be OP if they have a) high attack, b) high movement. The units which fit these criteria are: Fighter, Bomber, Helicopter, Stealth Fighter, Stealth Bomber. A decision was made where high-movement units attacking at 10+ were given the OA-flag (Helicopter, Bomber, Stealth Bomber). This was oversimplified, heavy-handed, crude and dirty. The result? a) The units <10 (Fighters and Stealth Fighters) became more powerful than the more expensive units, and also became the only unrestricted high-move high-attack units, b) Helicopter, Bomber, and Stealth Bomber lost more than half their original value, but kept their 2x pricing. These units were amputated to attack only once yet still cost far more than units with many attacks. OA-units still held surprise tactical use in the semi-RTS environment of 3 minute simultaneous turns. On rare occasions, they were useful in spite of their overpriced ineffective in-game stats. Why? Because of a meta-game dynamic: scarcity in time/focus/attention dynamics. They had rare usefulness inside the little “cracks and holes” of an environment where you had to quickly make your moves in a rushed format that didn't always give the opponent enough time to react. They were used only under a “meta-game” rush-and-surprise dynamic. These units were no longer what they were supposed to be. They only had any use when quick clever RTS play allowed a player to use an OA-unit in the last seconds of a turn, then give an instant GO TO and rescue the unit when TC came only seconds later. The irony is that the only worth of an OA-unit was that the worthlessness of the unit is what made it useful for surprise. It was so ridiculous that in the last 10 seconds of a turn, many experts had the habit of selecting Fighters ready to retaliate. This made enemy OA-units worthless again. If you didn't do it, those OA-units became useful only because you did not engage in meta-game RTS! That's right. The possible value of these units only came from another player not doing quick RTS in the last seconds of a turn. In short-turn Freeciv, OA units only had relevance by living inside these dark cracks, much like a centipede or a spider. But the game still worked: Perhaps your ally distracts your enemy elsewhere while you make a last second RTS-bombing and a quick GO TO in the last seconds. Only under this RTS psychological head-game scenario did the OA-flag and OA-units keep a dim shadow of their original role and value. Pure abstract facts tell a story: OA-units lose all moves after attacking, can attack far LESS times than cheaper “less powerful” units, have an extra turn of recycle time on unit healing, are exposed to instant death retaliation from much cheaper older tech units, and to top it all off, are double priced !! The OA-flag was not a subtle correction: it made stronger units inferior to weaker units while still costing more. Here's the truth: the units were close to balanced and properly priced before OA-flag, and at the end of the game, were the preferred method for winning it. This made them feared, and some complained loud enough to get this dirty compromise “fix” which left the units half serviceable in an RTS-environment. The situation was left like that. Ruleset gurus knew something was terminally ill, and started curing OA-units in their own rulesets. But Multiplayer was left dysfunctional. But wait, there's more. It gets worse. Three things happened. The situation went from bad to wrecked. 1) Longturn became one of the preferred formats for expert play. 2) Version 2.3 introduced UWT to manage RTS issues. 3) Massive multiplayer accelerated late-game pace, invalidating the time window of half-usefulness that OA-units had. OA failure was complete. The units lost all original roles and value. 4) The “removal” of these units hurt the carefully designed late-game balance. This balance meant to gradually shift away from a defensive bias into: ► A late game where offense and defense finally equalize, ► A large menu of unique tactical abilities can mix into clever chess moves to break stalemates. There was a four-headed monster of “OneAttack” + Longturn + UWT + closed tech-windows. It degenerated these units to extinction. The late-game became the least tactical part of the game, when before it was the most tactical ! The diluted tactical portfolio resulted in bluntly stupid stack wars consisting of Howitzers, Mech. Inf and Stealth Fighters. In small steps so slow that no one noticed, late game Civ had changed from a thing of genius tactics into something broken. New people came and didn't know any better. Hobbyists migrated to other rulesets. Multiplayer late-game was left in a wasteland. This change must be done to bring back the original genius, balance, and beauty of the late game. 10. No ZoC for Air units. Air Units block land units from the tile they're on, but don't prevent units from going to adjacent tiles. Explanation: Rulesets allow two options for Fighters. They can be: a) impotent – a Fighter can't provide defensive ground support, unable to protect a Worker from a vet Warrior, or b) overpowered/unreachable – a Fighter can block 10 Armors from a Worker. Multiplayer went with option (b). This has always been a dirty compromise. Air superiority and defensive air support got represented through the Unreachable effect, even if this creates the possibility for rare but ridiculous exploits. Exploits are more rare than the need for normal defensive air cover, and that's why we need option (b). But if we had to choose OP over underpowered, is it smart to aggravate the OP trait by giving an Unreachable Fighter extra ZoC over adjacent tiles it does not occupy? If we keep option (b), then trimming back ZoC helps reduce the abusive exploit. (And with small fixes in other areas, reduce the exploit even more, while respecting the more important need for defensive air support.) Effect: To allow defensive air support, Fighters keep 'Unreachable' ability but can't exert ZoC over unoccupied tiles. '11. Para-drop for Paratroopers adjusted' 2x area coverage to be proportional to 2x-movement. Para-drop ranges goes to 14. Explanation: Keeping Para-drop at 1x move rate made Paratroopers weak in MP 2x rules. We raised range from 10mv to 14mv, giving 2x more target area than MP 1x. (Play-testing revealed that 1x range made the unit underpowered compared to the same unit in MP 1x rules. But 2x range made 4x target area – an overpowered unit compared to MP 1x.) Effect: With 2x target area, Paratroopers now become a relevant late-game unit in a 2x move ruleset. With this and several other late game units now being useful again, the late-game has its full menu of tactical options finally functioning! '12. Multipurpose Marines.' Can attack FROM air/land/sea TO air/land/sea. ' ''Explanation: A simple modification improves 3 problems. '''1. The first problem is that the strongest foot soldier in the game – neither an improvement over the Alpine in defence, nor over Cavalry in attack -- came much later than both, making them relatively weaker and not a "breakthrough upon arrival." They move worse, and expire sooner. Except for a short time window where Marines might be useful in amphibious attacks, they were a mediocre unit whose effectiveness rapidly expired, leaving a blank void in late game foot units. 2. The game's abstract simplification of unit abilities forced a lack of interactive balance between land/air/sea tactical combinations. 3. Air units' Unreachable-flag is slightly overpowered but has to be retained because it prevents even worse problems. Real Marines have a mission of land/air/sea warfare that is sung in the lyrics of Hymn of the US Marine Corps – “From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our country's battles, in the air, on land, and sea.” Real Marines are multi-purpose and heavily equipped with diverse weaponry, capable of land/air/sea engagements. Freeciv had a late-game which was suffering from a) expired usefulness of foot soldiers, b) no utilitarian units to plug holes in design, c) unrealistic exploits and gaps in land/air/sea interactions, and d) the most powerful late-game foot unit was overpriced, under-powered, and expired. too early. It was a "Perfect Storm" for balancing many facets of the game with one simple fix. Effect: Marines can mortar sea units from land, board and attack from Helicopters or Transports, and using anti-air armaments from land or air or sea. Marines attack at half strength against Sea and Air, giving for example a 14% chance of success against a Fighter. These odds are not “game busting” and they're not supposed to be. They fix the impossibility of many land-air-sea interactions and solve gridlocks and exploits that were abusive only because the exploiter knew it was 100% impossible to counter. To keep their "patch-fixing" "special ops" tactics functional into the late game, the vet-3 level elite Marine becomes a specialized Navy SEAL with a 250% multiplier instead of the standard 200%. '13. Escort Fighters added.' ' A:3 D:5 M:18 FP:2 Fuel: 2 turns. Cost: 80 shields.' Explanation: The lack of diversity in air units left a poverty of tactical combinations and mixtures, and did not represent the variety of air units which were invented precisely for that reason. The unrealistic lack of Escort Fighters left Bombers overpriced, defenseless, and almost never used. The Escort Fighter is a twin-engine defensive Fighter with larger size, fuel capacity, and damage absorption. It's better for long-range missions and defence. It can accompany a Bomber on its mission and escort it home on the next turn, and is serviceable for longer-range offensive capabilities. Effect: The higher cost and weaker attack of this unit–especially against itself–means that Fighters remain the king of the skies, as explained below. The more expensive Escort Fighter is useful for less common strategic purposes, like helping Bombers become relevant again. This unit helps air combat go from a one-unit game of checkers to a multi-unit game of chess. This does not create an OP exploit for Bombers, as two Fighters against an escorted Bomber will sacrifice 0 or 60 shields in order to kill 190 shields. Likewise, 2 Fighters can still defeat a single Escort Fighter hovering in a defensive support role, at a decisively favorable 41:80 attrition ratio. Stacking multiple Escort Fighters has rapidly diminishing value since each attacking Fighter has a 31% chance of triggering Killstack. Fighters' more frequent use in combat also gives higher vet levels. To conclude, this is a more specialized unit for long-range runs, protecting bombing raids, or giving ground support, but likely limited to use in areas that do not have more than a couple of enemy Fighters who can counterstrike. '14. Medium Bombers added.' ' A:6 D:2 M:12 FP:2 Fuel: 2 turns. Cost: 85 shields.' Explanation: Zero diversity in air units gave no tactical combinations. Fighters were used as the 'real bombers', while Bombers were never used. Between the Fighter's attack of 4 and the Bomber's attack of 12, there was a huge vacuum. The Fighter was the only unit in the mid-game skies, while the Bomber was essentially broken. That left an air game equivalent to a ground game with only Chariots. A game with only one piece. Checkers, not chess. An age of air superiority took place where a single unit did both fighting and bombing alike, then stronger ground units suddenly made it mostly obsolete until Stealth. We are against adding any new units “just because we can.” But the Medium Bomber was a no-brainer because it fixed many problems. No longer does the Fighter go through a short stage of OP then rapidly obsolete. Continuity returns to the late-game arms race. The Medium Bomber is able to continue air wars against ground units in late-mid and early-late game, while giving the Fighter a longer life-span as the premier counterstrike unit to stop it. Effect: We used to have a simpleton scenario of a single air unit arriving, being OP for a short while, then quickly becoming useless. Now we get a truly balanced tactical game of many possibilities, just by introducing a single unit. Just like musket+cannon+dragoon create a three-way dynamic, the air war now has similar dynamics. The lighter duties and more affordable cost of the Medium Bomber make it a complement to the later Heavy Bomber, rather than becoming obsolete. '15. Bombers updated.' A:12 D:3 M:16 FP:2 Fuel: 2 turns. Cost: 120 shields. Renamed “Heavy Bomber” to distinguish it from the Medium Bomber. The ancient OA-flag is what caused the Bomber's flaws. Over time, other changes made it worse. This is how it ended up totally wrecked—by not evolving with other changes. How can we fix it while keeping true to its role? The big fix isn't in the unit itself, but in deprecating OA from MP2, and adding the other air units. Now this unit finds a new role and purpose because how all the other units relate. Defence Strength is raised to 3''' – maybe a moot point since half-priced Fighters still beat it in combat.. For what it's worth, '''3 defence better represents the Heavy Bomber's mass, greater damage absorption, and multiple gunner stations. An undamaged Heavy Bomber now has a hope to defend against a Fighter (24% instead of 1%). But what this means is that more than one Fighter is needed to shoot down multiple Bombers. Interestingly, the higher 3-defence helps the Fighter last longer! How? From finely balanced rock-paper-scissors – the Escort Fighter's 3-attack and high cost make it a bad choice against undamaged Heavy Bombers. This means the Fighter remains relevant later into the game as the standard air interceptor. All four mid-game air units stay relevant rather than becoming useless when a newer air or ground unit becomes available. This unit returns to action after years in a coma. '16. Anti-aircraft Artillery added.' A:1 D:1 M:2 FP:2. 3X Attack, 4X defence vs "Air". Cost: 50 shields. Explanation: MP2's goal keeps classic familiarity. We justifiably added 2 units to fix gaps in game balance. Why add more? A new unit like this needs justification. Now there are 4 mid-game air units. The mid-game is more playable and not forced to “make more Fighters than all the burritos in Mexico & Texas!” But an existing problem became obvious: 1) inability to create air defences until Rocketry, 2) Those defences are unmovable. In the old MP, Air wars went through jolting stages and shifting balance in tech power, so it was less obvious. But there were constant complaints about a hole in the game: Unreachability by Ground was the only way to represent proper Air support, but it created unrealistic exploits with no tactical counter. Counters should be a unit available before Rocketry! One look at reality shows this is accurate. But adding a unit that can counter Air is hard. It is easy to ruin game balance or MP familiarity. Some suggested a counter-unit which dominates against Air. Research and play-testing proved this should not be the case. Anti-aircraft Artillery did not dominate, but only provided moderate defense. An anti-air unit that makes all air units worthless is neither realistic nor what we're trying to achieve. Iterative brainstorming produced a candidate to balance all goals. The AAA is a 2FP unit that attacks and defends at 1, except against Air, where it attacks at 3 and defends at 4. For almost the same price as a Fighter, you get a 50% chance against Fighters. It can't fly, is reachable by everything, only moves 2, is almost useless against anything but air units, and even then only 50% likely to survive against a standard Fighter. Wouldn't you rather build a Fighter for 10 more shields? Well, you probably should! This is not a game balance-buster to spam against air units. It's a slow unit that when it finally arrives, has a decent chance to take out the first Fighter who attacks, but not the second. It diverts 50 shields away from other important purchases, requires time to move into place and tactical anticipation of where your opponent might strike. Not surprisingly, this is exactly how real AAA were deployed, with moderate but not amazing success. For the same price, you could have bought a unit that defends against land or sea attacks, or can be offensive. If this is all it does, why add it? Well, it also provides another escape clause regarding Unreachable exploitation, and it provides a small 6/5 attrition sweet spot for resisting a “spam-air-only” strategy. Effect: You can spend 50 on an AAA that's usually less effective than 50 spent on an Alpine or Fighter. But it can provide a slight edge in odds in special situations, and help resist Air-only strategies. This restores balance to air/land relationships and gives more depth to air/air (Bombers counter AAA.) Note: this particular unit, unlike others, is in alpha-candidate mode. 17. Air units can airlift themselves. They don't need to "fit" in an airplane, since they are an airplane. This fixes a ridiculous irony where Land units could move across the world and arrive at battle fronts faster than aircraft because they were taking advantage of... aircraft airlifting them. 18. Balloon added. A:0 D:1 M:5 Fuel: 2 turns. Cost:30. This was added because 1) Chemistry gave nothing, 2) Play-testing revealed it was a lot of fun. The Balloon is a unit with 3 vision which can float out for a turn before it must return to a city, fortress, or airbase. All units from Riflemen onward can shoot it down, but it is unreachable to more primitive units. Balloons cannot cross mountains. The result is an early-mid-game unit that can play peek-a-boo over borders to collect intel. A harmless little unit does a lot to arouse diplomatic incidents, intrigue, interactions, and intel. In reality, Balloons were effective units for collecting tactical intel, but only before firearms gained greater range and accuracy. This is a realistic unit and it increases playability through added intrigue, tactics, interaction, depth, and fun. 'III. Naval Units' 1. CanEscape Add realism and extra tactics and makes modern naval combat possible (requires 3.0+) Explanation:'' Killstack created unrealistic scenarios in naval warfare, utterly breaking it. Fleets on open waters enjoy strength in numbers against smaller fleets. A single ship attacking an expensive mega-fleet should not be able to kill the entire fleet--especially since one attacker can't chase a fleet escaping in all directions. A chain of causes led to bad results: Huge cost of lost killstacks '→''' Fear of stacking ships → 'Lack of fleet co-defence '→ High priced ships become isolated death-trap money-pits''' → 'Game degenerates into cheap unit-spam of Submarines and Fighters' → 'Naval warfare becomes unrealistic, unplayable, and bye-bye. To improve all that, modern ships now take advantage of the new "CanEscape" feature, which was added to Freeciv precisely to solve these situations. ''Effect: Killstack is still in effect, but diminished. When the "stack defender" is defeated, each separate unit in a “defeated stack” who has more moves remaining than the attacker, has a 50% chance to escape the Killstack. This has several interesting results: a) Ships are likely to have a 50% chance to escape Killstack if they are attacked before they moved, b) Ships attacked by Air units coming from a nearby base will probably not avoid Killstack, and c) Fleets, ships, or subs who "lie in wait" for a fleet to move into their waters, can surprise or "ambush" it and likely get a Killstack (perhaps after suffering some losses trying to eliminate the strongest fleet defender(s), since the game now allows for fleet co-defence.) Tactical consideration of fleets and fleet movement becomes a component of game-play with cat-and-mouse movement, hunting, and tactical maneuvers. Modern Naval Warfare is introduced to the game with a new level of tactics. This feature only applies to ships more advanced than the Caravel. 2. Naval Re-balance. Introduction: A flaw in sea unit balance was either a cheat or a massively incompetent mistake. Whatever it was, it was game-breaking. The giant mistake was that the Submarine's attack strength was backdoor buffed to be far higher than the original Civ I and II. This violated the design goal promising to be as identical as possible to original Civ I/II. But it's worse than that. The buff did just the opposite of what future versions did to improve balance. In the evolution of Civilization™ balance, the Submarine from Sid Meier's original Civ I/II was thought to be OP and got small nerfs relative to other ships, ''to achieve better balance. But in Freeciv Classic it got "illegally" buffed to the same offensive strength as the Battleship, but at ⅓ the cost and earlier in the tech tree! This made the cheap Submarine go up to a 97% chance of success against the Cruiser! This had to be fixed. This is corrected by either correcting the the Sub back to original correct strength as in MP+, and/or by introducing ASW capabilities that Civilization later introduced in its own re-balance. Careful improvising around ruleset restrictions was required to mathematically adjust ''in a way that doesn't change how all the other ships relate to all the other land, sea, and air units. The solution that was finally chosen was selected because it was able to keep two positive outcomes instead of only one. A Naval Rebalance Odds Chart is further below. Submarine. A12 D2 FP2 HP28. Even though it was balanced when Sid had the attack strength much lower, and even though MP+ had conservatively rolled it back to that level, in MP2 we went for more aggressive improvement. The attack strength is left at Battleship level of 12. Why? There is playability benefit in the 12 attack value. It gives Submarines realistic “hit-and-run-away” capabilities against ships that have low chances of surviving (i.e., Transport, Ironclad, Galleon, Frigate, etc.). The huge excess over standard attack strength can be evened out in other ways. Against ships that had better odds against Subs in original Civ, ASW bonuses are introduced to tune the odds similar to Civ and other games with balanced naval combat. Thus we get two benefits: the odds are fixed how they should be for the Submarine to be balanced against more advanced warships, while it can hit-and-run better against weaker ships. An adjustment from 30hp to 28hp seems bizarre but it was a final tweak needed in a difficult puzzle to get naval units properly balanced for the first time ever in Freeciv. While all the above fixed OP aspects of the Submarine, there was an underpowered aspect also. Air units have an incredibly unrealistic ease at attacking Submarines, totally ignoring their real ability to submerge to avoid attack. Sadly, this can't be prevented because of stack exploits. If a Submarine is unreachable to Air or has a strong defence bonus, it could sit inside a stack of other ships and imbalance Air vs. Naval combat. There is currently no way for the ruleset to program a realistic representation of the "submersion advantage" with respect to Air units. When it becomes possible for Unreachable_protects to be set to ON for some units and OFF for others, or some other programmable fix is created, then the Submarine will be changed to better defend/evade Air units. For now, the "CanEscape" flag (see III.1) partially compensates for this problem to still give it an improvement over 'MP' and 'MP+' ''— at least if the Sub is in a "pack" of other Subs or ships.'' Destroyer's attack and defence upgrades from 4 to 5. This gives minimal improvement over Ironclad but still allows higher vet Ironclads to compete. It is the first of two steps in fixing Destroyers to fill a large hole in naval balance. Let's explain. Formerly, naval unit evolution went Ironclad (30hp/4/4/1fp) > Destroyer (30hp/4/4/1fp) > Cruiser (30hp/6/6/'2fp'). There is nothing between the Ironclad and the Cruiser – Destroyer is same as Ironclad. Destroyer is supposed to be an upgraded choice: 1) between Ironclad and Cruiser, 2) a cheaper “strength in numbers” support for capital ships (Cruiser, Battleship, Carrier), 3) an anti-submarine unit. Its modern purpose is to scout, patrol and destroy. But, this "anti-sub unit” had a 100% chance of defeat against a sub attack and a only a 48% chance to defeat the unit it's supposed to hunt. An easy fix would be to give the Destroyer 2fp, but that is OP at the early stage the Destroyer enters the game. The solution is to give the Destroyer a minimal buff to A:5 D:5 early on, and then let it upgrade to a more advanced Destroyer in the late game. For the current unit, here is what is fixed and what is achieved by it: The Destroyer has a 74% chance of success when attacking a Submarine, up from a broken 48%. The Destroyer gets an ASW bonus to balance the Sub's hit-and-run buff. This makes the chance of a successful attack by a Sub go from 100% to 65%. Now, each unit is likely but not certain to kill the other when attacking. This brings deadly cat and mouse games between Submarines and Destroyers. It plugs a huge hole that prevented Freeciv from having proper naval warfare. The upgraded Missile Destroyer, available with Rocketry, is essentially the same unit but with an upgrade to 2fp -- '''a complete modern fleet with all tactical roles and combinations is now possible. '''Cruiser gets ASW bonus to balance Sub's hit-and-run buff. Odds of a successful Submarine attack against the more expensive Cruiser go from 97% to 43%. Keep in mind this represents a huge economic value:odds ratio in favour of Submarines: a 2v1 against a Cruiser yields 50 shields lost for 80 killed. The previous attrition ratio was OP to the point of ridiculous. Aegis Cruiser gets ASW bonus to balance Sub's hit-and-run buff. 1) The cheaper and much-older-tech Submarine still does an enormously good job at powerful value economics, since 2 will sink a single Aegis Cruiser, trading out 50 shields of old tech to sink 100 shields of “newest best tech.” For an older cheaper unit going against a newer stronger unit, Submarine vs. Aegis still remains the best odds in the game for old+cheap vs. new+expensive. Even so, Submarine strategists accustomed to the old imbalance might want to consider thinking of “wolf-pack tactics.” Aegis Cruiser can now attack Air and Missile units directly. This is the real purpose of this ship. There is little change to playability: this affects rare cases of a hovering nearby Air unit, and in such cases the Aegis will still consider that it defends better than it attacks. Under the same thinking, that the Aegis actually is a missile cruiser, it also gets another realistic ability: it can now carry 2 Cruise Missiles. The final result is increased realism, viability, and improve more playable balance for surface ships. Battleship gets ASW bonus to balance Sub's hit-and-run buff. The adjustment means that 3 Submarines have a 65% chance of sinking the 160 shield Battleship, instead of 2 Submarines having an 84% chance. This deserves careful analysis for mathematical balance: The correction gives a 65% chance of losing 100 shields to sink 160 shields, instead of an 84% chance of losing 50 shields to sink 160 shields. Attrition ratio goes from game-breaking to a more realistic 1.39x in favour of the Submarine, closer to original Civ I/II. Movement point ratios fine tuned to use the refined accuracy that 2x move rates offer. A Battleship is just barely slower than a Cruiser. But because 1x units can't be set to half movement points, this was represented by the loss of a whole move point. Then, 2x moves doubled the surplus range of the Cruiser and other sea units. Ironically, a solution is built into 2x moves, as it creates a doubled scale that can tune units with "half moves." This is great for fixing units with lop-sided movement ratios. Battleship:Cruiser:Destroyer ratios now change from 4:5:6 (1x) to 10:11:12 (2x). This yields the same difference in tile range as 1x and gives almost the exact ratios for real life speeds. A doubled imbalance in 2x gets changed to a balanced ratio even better than 1x. Finer tuning capabilities of 2x improve naval balance and playability. Starting with Ironclads, warships can pillage buoys. Letting warships pillage buoys is realistic and more playable. Be careful! Your opponent will see you doing it! A new component of realism, guessing, daring and danger! Triremes cost 30. The cost of 40 penalized early naval exploration and colonization far too heavily, making an unrealistic avoidance of these positive game elements. This resulted in worse game balance and playability. For nations with start placement on islands smaller than other nations, this goes beyond balance and playability -- it becomes an issue of disadvantaged unfairness. The overall effect is increased naval action, exploration, and colonization, which are all goals of achieving enhanced playability in the MP2 ruleset. Galleons attack at 1. Galleons go from 0 attack to 1. The reasons: a) make the Galleon actually be a Galleon, b) not abruptly shut off the attack ability of Triremes and Caravels when they upgrade. Attack ability smoothly and gradually phases out. 'Naval Re-balance Odds Chart' How sea battle odds are adjusted in MP2. 3. Missile Destroyer added A:5 D:5 HP:30 FP:2 M:12 ''2x Defence'' against Subs + "AirAttacker" units. Capacity: 1 Cruise Missile. Explanation: This unit upgrades the Destroyer after Rocketry 'is known. A flaw in sea unit upgrade progression had made the Destroyer identical in strength to the Ironclad. This left a huge gaping hole: from mid-game on, there were no "medium strength" surface ships. Literally there was a jump from Ironclad (30x4x1='120 strength) to Cruiser (30x6x2='360' strength). Nothing in between. In theory, giving the Destroyer FP:2 'would have filled the gap to perfectly solve the problem (30x4x2='240 strength). It would allow the Destroyer to properly fulfill its tactical roles and missions well into the early-late game. Three things worked against that choice: 1) Conservatism to provide a familiar MP experience, 2) At the rather early phase of the game when the Destroyer enters, FP:2 would give it a short but wild "OP" heyday, 3) '''The little-used Cruiser would be used even less. The superior solution is to give the first Destroyer a small buff for mid-game relevance, then make it upgrade to the Missile Destroyer in the late game. This has five benefits: '''a) realism, b) finer tuning of naval balance, c) better playability, d) it mirrors the upgrade progression for Cruisers, e) the upgraded unit has continued relevance ''past ''the late-mid-game -- that is, during a period when Destroyers are the most commonly used surface ship in real modern navies, and during a period when FCW surface ships lacked modern upgrades for balance. Effect: The late-game's modern surface ships become the trio of Carrier '+ '''Aegis '+ '''Missile Destroyer. The Destroyer is now able to continue its support roles of scouting, seek-and-destroy, and also the duties of regional patrolling and "incident police." 4. River-worthy ships Triremes, Caravels, Galleons, and Frigates can finally move on rivers. Explanation: When Multiplayer was made, Freeciv server lacked the feature to allow ships to travel rivers. It has been possible now for a long time. There is no reason for a modern version of the Multiplayer ruleset to ignore the increased playability and realism. Some argue that it should be just Triremes. Let's explain a little more. Freeciv Map Generator is known to create continental maps with too many unconnected lakes and seas, seriously interfering with the ability to have a proper game that features significant land AND sea action. Private theories about which ships could or could not travel on rivers are moot. There were variable sizes in the same classes of ships, variable depths in rivers, and every nation could and ''did design their ships to travel on specific rivers. ''There were “River class” ships in all genres of Frigates, Galleons, and even Destroyers. It is petty and misses the point, to bicker realism arguments that argue things like "What is the average depth of a Freeciv river?" Freeciv is a game whose level of abstraction is far simpler than that. Improving the playability is 10 times more important than academic debates like this one: “if we assume a river is deep enough that it was able to increase trade and be represented on the map, we could assume an average Freeciv river to have a depth 4m, which means only 60% of Frigates could travel on it." Effect: These four ships can travel by river. The main benefit is a relief to the fact that Map Generators have a tendency to make water far too isolated, “laked”, and landlocked, which made ships tragically useless on continental maps. A second benefit is increased tactical depth. TIP: Fortressing your river is a great way to secure it. Start thinking how you can use your river to your advantage. 'III. Improvements and Wonders' '1. Pyramid gains its Classic effect' Food storage +25% in every city. Explanation: Making the Pyramid rapture the city who owns it was an attempt to lessen the gap between rapture and non-rapture governments. But it turned out to be overpriced and ineffective compared to the original effect. Effect: Adding the Pyramid's original effect gives back a mild compensation for non-rapture nations. Even with the old Pyramid, Classic experts almost exclusively go for rapture government strategies. This “change” returns some lost balance to less powerful non-rapture governments. It may provide a “vertical alternative” for cramped nations who can't expand territorially. In the early game, the effect looks like this: For roughly the cost of 5 Granaries, you get a “half Granary” in all cities. Since it's only a “half Granary”, value compared to Granaries breaks even at 10 cities, assuming the Pyramid is finished before 10 new cities grew to size 2. In the late-game, the effect of the Pyramids may be different. It becomes a relatively cheap Wonder that helps Communism and Fundamentalism become more viable governments. For late-game non-rapture governments, this Wonder can be thought of as a “patch.” Even so, non-rapture governments may struggle to compete with rapture governments. The Pyramid is not meant to give equality to all governments, and you are cautioned that it certainly doesn't. It only corrects a “widening of the gap” that MP1 unintentionally aggravated. Perhaps it will allow a bit more flexibility in strategies and a more flexible timing of revolutions. The return of this Wonder to proper usability brings variety, balance improvement, options to consider other governments, greater depth, and improved playability. '2. Copernicus Observatory reduced to 100 shields.' Explanation: This Wonder was meant to enable an early science strategy. Formerly, it acted the same as a Library, but at 3.3x the cost! Sadly, when the cost was 200, an early science strategy was always 333% better off by buying 3 more Libraries, pocketing 20 shields, and skipping Astronomy. The incentive to get Astronomy and Copernicus wasn't there. Effect: Copernicus now costs 1.7x more than a Library with the same effect as one. It's now maybe conceivable in a high trade city to fall behind in early vital techs and risk Astronomy and Copernicus. '3. Great Wall improved.' Cost 275, obsolete by: Machine Tools. Explanation: The more rapid pace of Multiplayer games usually makes the discovery of Metallurgy happen before Jesus! The Great Wall was undesirable because of this accelerated obsolescence. By the time it's affordable, it's already about to go obsolete. Cost reduced slightly, and it is made to go obsolete with Artillery instead of Cannons. Effect: A mostly unused Wonder expires slightly later, making this Wonder perhaps something to consider, if in the early game you have a long stretched nation with more than 6 cities bordering Genghis Khan as your neighbor. Just as it should be. '4. Wonders restored to full nationwide effect.' No longer “on the same continent”. Explanation: Prior to Multiplayer, Great Wonders were overpowered for a game with >20 players. Thus, most Great Wonders were made “even Smaller Wonders” – working only on the same continent. This arbitrarily broke Wonders on some maps. Effect: This will have no effect on most maps. On islands maps, many Wonders will no longer be useless. In the rare case where multi-continent maps are used, this eliminates the disadvantage for players starting on smaller continents. '5. Courthouse reworked and fixed.' Explanation: In MP1, most players never built Courthouses. Bad rounding formulas reduced corruption by an average of only 41%. ' In Democracy, '+1 content citizen was poor value — compare it to +3 or +4 '''content from an Amphitheater at the same price. Also, '''MP1 rules removed Incite Revolt. '''This removed the main benefit of the building, yet '''MP1 kept the same inflated cost. The result was a broken Courthouse. Change was needed. Keeping true to the spirit of a multi-purpose building which provides benefits in safety, stability, and law and order, here is the new Courthouse: *'Cost reduced to 45.' *'Corruption reduction' fixed — after rounding, the average is now 53% reduction. *'Eliminates “tile corruption” penalties '''during Despotism and Anarchy. *'+1 free unit upkeep''' from "greater law and order." *'Protection from hostile diplomatic actions improved 20% '(base 80% success rate goes to 60%). Effect: An expensive improvement is now affordable, but not a top-ranked investment. It now gives ½''' corruption instead of '''⅖. Since preventing revolt was half the Courthouse's value, the building gets 25% cost reduction and small compensation bonus of +1 free unit upkeep. The removal of “tile corruption” is a smaller benefit than it first appears, since proper play attempts to settle and get out of Despotism as fast as possible. You are not advised to build Courthouses during Despotism. In theory, Courthouses could provide the possibility for a Republic to revert into a temporary war-time Despotism. The new Courthouse helps restore the strategic menu of options that original MP1 accidentally flattened. This change provides a small balance improvement to governments who suffer corruption, though the cost of reducing that corruption is steep, and break-even is many turns out. '6. Granary costs 35 shields.' Explanation: This is almost the same as 40. Was 40 the perfect price or were the prices just rounded to the nearest 10? The truth is that a Granary is a vehicle for growth in non-rapture governments. Non-rapture governments are universally known to be underpowered from what they should be, which causes political factions to try to completely remove rapture rulesets from the entire Freeciv community, and to even have it as their stated goal. The Granary was slightly overpriced. This slightly fixes it in an intelligent way that improves game balance between governments. Effect: An ever so slight improvement to governments that require food to grow. On the other hand, in rapture governments, Granaries are highly complex purchases which are usually better skipped. That remains overwhelmingly the case, but special case scenarios such as mountain cities are now slightly more possible in some special cases. Don't overestimate this change. It's the same building for essentially the same cost. '7. Mass Transit' Costs 60 shields and increases base trade by +2. Explanation: It's unfortunate that Mass Transit was completely broken. It was the cost of 3 Engineers with upkeep equivalent to 2 Engineers. It reduced the effect of Population Pollution (not Production Pollution). Let's compare that to an Engineer. A single Engineer can clean pollution that came from Population OR Production in any nearby city. Mass Transit might prevent pollution in a single city if it came from Population (but it usually comes from Production.) When Pollution doesn't happen on a given turn, an Engineer can still irrigate, road, rail, make a fort, scout a border, etc. Engineers were ridiculously superior to Mass Transit. Too many Engineers ran around cleaning pollution while pollution prevention was never purchased. A major fix was needed. The ROI of the improvement is now positive. Realism is increased: Mass Transit increases mobility of citizens and generates small revenues from tickets. The Engineer is cheaper and has all the other benefits, so it remains a strong alternative: no classic strategies get broken. But the nation who goes for Mass Transit enjoys: a) +2 trade to recoup the extra 20 shield cost over an Engineer; b) Pollution control becomes preventative; c) Increased playability. Effect: Very little. Overall play remains the same. You can choose to pay a little more than it's worth to have less annoyance cleaning pollution tiles, exercise preventative control rather than reactive control, and slowly get a return on investment that's tiny compared to other investments. '7b. Recycling Center' Costs 70, upkeep 1, increases base production by +2. Explanation: Recycling Center was also broken. Recycling does not increase citizen mobility or trade. It generates raw recycled materials which aid production. Therefore, this improvement slowly pays for itself by adding +2 shields to the city's output. A useless improvement now becomes a modest investment that increases playability. Effect: Very little. The game remains the same, except some people might use this improvement. '8. Palace' Makes +1 Happy in Capital City. Explanation: This is a subtle balance smoothing. The coding of the celebration calculation appears to have created a “catch-22” in Despotism, Monarchy, Communism, and Fundamentalism for unlocking the penalties: Celebration is needed to get the extra trade to create the Celebration. Penalty unlocking is little known and little used, partly because of this problem, which eliminated a benefit that's supposed to be there. We should all know that removing benefits from non-representative governments was bad, and could even create whole communities of players migrating to Civ2civ3 rules. Effect: It's now at least feasible to try unlocking celebration bonuses in a capital city, under non-representative government. But that's only one slight reason for this very slight change. The other is a balance smoothing: capitals should typically be larger than other cities, but because first cities generally try to take advantage of production, capitals are often discouraged by certain game mechanics to not be able to grow as large. '9. Hanging Garden' Gives +2 luxury to its home city Explanation: This was imported from Civ2civ3. The story goes that the improvement should arguably have more effect in its home city than in other cities. Civ2civ3 players point out that it becomes more strategic to select which city will host the Wonder, to get this extra effect. Your most corrupt city that needs help to celebrate? Your city that uses lots of coal and gets no lux? Your border city that you want to send an aggressive unit from? Or some other creative reason perhaps? Since these arguments fit the mission statement of MP2 to create greater depth of strategy, those valid arguments are the real reason the feature was imported. Effect: Rather insignificant. The city chosen for Hanging Gardens, if chosen right, might be able to go one higher in population than other cities. Or, if it was a problem city because of higher corruption or less trade, Hanging Gardens might be a medicine to balance empire happiness better. '10. Colossus expires with Automobile.' Explanation: Adjusting Colossus to expire with Automobile instead of Flight is becoming common in other custom rulesets. The rationale is that Superhighways provide an adequate replacement for a city that might have become dependent on Colossus to support its population size or other special functions. Effect: Very little. Makes Colossus enthusiasts happier. '11. Lighthouse' Improved and adjusted. +2 move, +1 vision, obsolete: Miniaturization. Cost: 170. Explanation: Lighthouse was OP in Classic rules. 200 shields gave ships +1 move and +1 vet. MP1 overcorrected: it removed the vet bonus, accelerated pace to go obsolete sooner, but kept the same cost. Then 2x moves came to MP1 without giving 2x to Lighthouse. The most valuable bonus was eliminated, the secondary bonus became half strength, the cost remained the same, and it expired much sooner. Careful thought is needed to save the spirit of the Wonder. Reducing cost is a no-brainer – except that with only ¼ of its original value intact, the cost would be so cheap that Lighthouse would be too common. To fix it right, the cost was slightly reduced to 170, the bonus corrected for 2x moves, the expiration delayed, and +1 vision replaces loss of +1 vet. These slight corrections make Lighthouse usable. Mission accomplished. Obsolete by: Miniaturization. '12. ReWonder 2.0 ' Five new Wonders added + old Wonders made viable. Formerly, Multiplayer was less than wonderful in how Wonders functioned. There is no mistake though -- It made enormous improvements over Classic rules. The Classic mechanic was so messed up that the first competitive communities were justified to play games with Wonders turned off. In Classic, exclusive Great Wonders gave OP benefits to the nation who got them first, making a horrible imbalance in any game with many humans, but especially in games where there were more players than available Wonders! Meanwhile, trade routes from Caravans had a far greater ROI than anything else. Expert strategy was 'golden pathed' into Caravans and trade routes. Strategic creativity was limited and repressed. The Multiplayer ruleset made huge improvements by eliminating OP Trade Routes and making most wonders Small Wonders. Caravans were converted from a "Golden Path OP trade generator" into a mechanism for creating diverse strategies. With Wonders being as expensive as they are, each civilization had to pick a limited few to uniquely define their national strengths. This is excellent and exactly in the spirit of the game. The ROI for Caravans-to-Wonders was not OP like Caravans-to-Trade Routes. Investment into units or other strategies could be done in ways to rival investments into Wonders. It was a huge step forward: replace OP Golden Path with strategic diversity and creativity. It sounds great in theory, until years of play-testing revealed it was not yet ideal: The ReWonder 1.0 Project made some Wonders overpriced or useless, or they expired too soon when playing with the highly accelerated technology pace in massive multiplayer. Out of the portfolio of many Wonders, there were only a limited number of "good Wonders". Experts usually got the same Wonders. It was reminiscent of what we don't want: a 'golden path' of expert strategy down a single path. We want to be surprised and appreciative how different personalities cook up different brilliant strategies, and learn and grow from what we see. For MP2, a splendid ReWonder 2.0 Project was conceived to evolve the vision: *Wonders which were hardly useful from faster tech pace and early expiration, were given more time. *Wonders which were formerly OP but then nerfed to be underpowered, are re-balanced to an optimum. *Wonders which became overpriced after a justified nerf, are reduced in cost. *Wonders which were still OP or inappropriate in massive multiplayer, completely changed to something else. *'Uniquely Define your Civilization'. Before, everyone picked the same 3-6 Wonders in approximately the same order. With there now being double the choices, some would assume this doubles the number of Wonder strategies. But combinatorial mathematics make for literally thousands of unique new strategies. Four new Wonders were imported from Civ2civ3 then carefully adjusted for MP2, and a fifth was invented from scratch. Four old Wonders which were then re-balanced to be useful. Now, instead of half of Wonders being useful and 'Golden Path' among experts, we have a new profile for the mechanics of how Wonders affect the game: All original Wonders were balanced to be potentially useful, plus five new Wonders added. The net effect of this is that instead of 1/3 of the Wonders being useful and always targeted in special order, there is an array of over double the 'selectable' wonders which are all useful. Instead of experts deciding on the same few Wonders in targeted order, they now have to pick a limited handful from a larger portfolio, all of which are useful, combining to create unique national character and strategic profile for each nation. This has a HUGE effect on creative strategy and finally achieves Civilization's original goal and mission of creating a game that lets each ruler create a DIFFERENT KIND OF CIVILISATION with DIFFERENT NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND STRENGTHS, yet if played skillfully, roughly equivalent and balanced in overall strength. All of this was done while maintaining the cost-values properly, so that some nations can explore strategies using no Wonders (or perhaps only 1 Wonder.) '12A. Ecclesiastical Palace' Added from Civ2civ3. Explanation: After Mysticism, for a pricey 110 shield cost, one can have an empire with two capitals and two palaces. Except as noted below, the Ecclesiastical Palace functions exactly like a normal Palace. Cities will suffer corruption rates based on which palace is closest. Unlike the original Palace, which gives bonuses to its city's production, this one gives bonuses to the city's gold income. This improvement should be considered as a Small Wonder, which it is. The reason for its inclusion is as follows. First, anything subtly helping non-representative governments without massively changing the game rules or mechanics, is probably a good thing. Second, anything encouraging greater variety of strategies and possibilities is a good thing, if balanced. This provides greater possible diversity for humans to create more complex multi-geographic empire arrangements, and is indeed similar to situations that took place in ancient civilizations. The cost is high enough to not create imbalance or be too frequently used. Rather, it can help equalize fairness for a player who suffered from bad maps, bad positioning, bad luck, or migration/colonisation issues. Basically, it's an option for a player who is suffering a lot more corruption than other players, because circumstances led to having a “bi-geographic” nation. Effect: This is not a normal Wonder that most people would be advised to get in most cases. What it does is provide a balance mechanism to counter bad luck in map positioning, encourage more diverse strategies like remote colonisation of certain areas, and encourage the possibility that governments other than Democracy might be used in the late game. '12B. Temple of Artemis' Added from Civ2civ3, but modified. Explanation: Like the goddess Artemis herself, a subtle mystic mysterious effect is imparted that can have a benefit for those who grasp her harmonious ways. But it confers little benefit to those who are more rugged in their approach. This Wonder gives one shield, one luxury, one science, and one gold, in every city with a Temple. You get a tiny bit of everything but sacrifice investment in Temples and a hefty 250 shields into the Wonder. You get no exploitable advantage in any one thing that can be leveraged. At a cost which takes longer than most investments to pay off, this Wonder requires a delicate “Artemisian” strategy to leverage the benefits, otherwise one has bought an expensive Wonder that provided no real breakthrough in any one area. If you think it's lame then this isn't the Wonder for you. But make no mistake, this Wonder is competitively valued for those who will study how to milk its benefits. Effect: A mystical mysterious Wonder is highly appropriate for game intrigue and interest. This is the kind of Wonder that normally underpays except in a variety of gracefully managed situations. It gives intangible benefits like improving strategic flexibility, ability to change strategies more gracefully, lubricate mechanics that are otherwise very exacting to pull off, and so on. In general, the player with this Wonder will find the whole game ever so slightly easier and less exacting, but not in any definitive way, and at a great cost to build. The Temple of Artemis allows flexibility and creativity in finding slight and subtle ways to get benefits. '12C. Mausoleum of Mausolos' Added from Civ2civ3. Explanation: A grand structure of beauty and memorium that helps eternalize the enlightened values of the ancestor king Mausolos. Mausolos was better than all others in justice and leading his people in an orderly fair way that inspired unity, cooperation, collaboration, and a coherent population ready to obey, defend, and follow law and order. In every city in the empire, the Mausoleum provides one content citizen for each City Walls and/or Courthouse. This Wonder is highly unusual and certainly not for everyone, but do not believe those who scoff at it. A player who marches to a different beat can combine these benefits if they have a particular kind of economic/military style of play, and enjoy benefits no other nation has. While this Wonder seems questionable in parity to others, it was ultimately included unchanged since it enhances the value of two high priced low ROI improvements, and opens doors to different styles of play. This Wonder confers its benefit until Radio is discovered. Effect: This Wonder confers absolutely no benefit in any city that has neither City Walls nor a Courthouse. Both of those are more costly requirements than other Wonders which require a Temple or no buildings at all. Nevertheless, if your personal strategy favours making one or both of those improvements, this Wonder provides a similar bonus to other such Wonders, while giving a later expiration. '12D. Statue of Zeus' Added from Civ2civ3. Explanation: Zeus is king of the gods for a reason. His powers are optimally effective in creating order, efficiency, obedience, and unified power from discipline. The statue of Zeus towers the spirit of this godly culture over your citizens. With little sacrifice in cost, Zeus confers to every city in your empire: 1 citizen made content from military activity. In the home city, it also gives +1 happy citizen and +4 upkeep of military units. The discovery of Tactics makes the Statue of Zeus obsolete. Effect: This provides a way for a Republic to erect a statue to rattle sabres and get popular support for military acitivities. An extra content citizen in every city allows a Republic to engage in limited foreign wars. It will work not quite as well in Democracy, and only make 1 of the unhappy citizens content. The home city can be chosen to maximize the gain of the extra happy citizen and 4 unit upkeep. '12E. Genghis Khan' Genghis Khan's Equestrian School added. Explanation: In following the mission of increased strategic diversity and options, a tried-and-true path game designers use is to look at concepts that exist in some mechanics, and transfer them to other mechanics. For example, following this method, the original designers got three diverse options out of one idea: Wonders were made for Trade (Colossus), Production (King Richard's), and Food (Pyramid). Genghis Khan's Equestrian School translates what the Lighthouse does for ships, over to all mounted units before Cavalry. It increases move points. In this case, the cost is 150 (the same as ~8 horsemen). All mounted units get +1 move point. In other words, 5 moves or 20% more range. This realistically represents some civilizations' historical specialization into equestrian lifestyle and warfare, and further increases the ability of nations to “specialize” their character and strategies. Furthermore, it increases the characteristic of 'never being too sure' of the unknown world out there. The Wonder expires in two ways. First, Cavalry units do not get the bonus. Second, the Wonder expires for all existing units upon the discovery of Mobile Warfare. Effect: For the rather high cost of 8 horsemen, or the alternative cost of not making a similarly priced Wonder or units or buildings, a nation may specialize in an early- and mid-game mounted warfare strategy, getting an advantage in equestrian movement and tactics. 'IV. Miscellaneous' '1. Gold Resource' Special tile “Gold” goes from 0/1/6 to 0/1/8. In overall values of F+P+T, mathematical modeling of 'true tile value' showed that Gold tied with Iron for last rank among all specials. This is counter-intuitive, as people think it ought to be a special find worth fighting for. Making Gold a top 3 resource requires 0/1/10, but creates possible exploits. 0/1/7 was still below average. Gold at 0/1/8 upgrades it to middle rank among special resources. '2. Illegal Action fixed.' Bug for Illegal Action movement penalty removed. Making a unit lose ⅓ move after an accidental keypress penalized people on less ergonomic devices, and punishes innocent testing to see if an action is legal. “Change Home City” sometimes gave a penalty when legally performed. All penalties are removed now. '3. Transform time for Swamp to Ocean' Changed from 36 to 12. Map Generator gives two extreme choices. You can create a map of many islands, or a continent with unconnected lakes. The first choice favors naval units over land units; the second, land over naval. Ideally, all units could participate in a game. Before, landlocked nations couldn't participate in sea wars, often due to about 4 tiles blocking their lake's connectivity to other water. Assuming some were swamp tiles, we had transformation of 4x36 = 144 worker-turns. On the other hand, 4x12=48: completed by 3 Engineers in 8 turns. This change lets sea units rise in importance, a step closer to balanced land/sea games. Let's analyse realism. Before, making a hill under a city took ⅓ the time as dredging a swamp. But dredging swamps takes less time and was done even before the industrial age. Why was the easiest transformation was set to be the hardest ?! If a change is more realistic, more playable, and is a small step toward “the Holy Grail” of land/sea balance, then it's a no-brainer. '4. Transform time for Grasslands to Hills' Changed from 12 to 15. Some have complained that using 6 Engineers to convert a conquered Grasslands city into a Hills city in only minutes around TC, aggravates the already pro-defensive skew toward a “stalemate” nature in late game wars. They say changing an existing city to instantly have Hills under it should not be possible because it's wildly unrealistic and has less playability. Others say this is a method for expert tacticians to outsmart opponents. When there is debate on both sides, we usually leave the rules untouched. However, it goes against the principles of this ruleset to leave something unchanged if it is all three of the following: a) unrealistic, b) “quasi-RTS-exploitative”, c) decreases playability. The 25% increase in Engineer efforts may not seem much, but should be just enough to drastically curb exploits, while still leaving the mechanic and the original rules in place. '5. Well-Digger' The new Well-digger is a "patch unit" that gives fair balance to nations who have no nearby water. In continental games, perhaps 10% of the time, a nation will get a start with no nearby water for irrigation. This results in complete failure to launch for the rest of the game. The solution was to create a unit that can be quickly created to provide a water source, whose upkeep is not justified if there are available water sources, and whose high upkeep encourages quick disbanding after a new water source is created. To prevent later exploitation scenarios, the unit's abilities expire after discovery of Alphabet or Pottery. '6. Canals' The Engineering tech discovery lets Workers and Engineers dig the Canal tile improvement. The only effect of a Canal is that it lets ships pass through. This balances an issue where Map Generator gave two extreme choices: Islands games favouring sea units over land units, or Continental games favouring land units over sea units. Now, on a continental map with <70% land, it is possible for landlocked nations to dig a few canals, and for others to perform map changes to open up shipping lanes and naval combat. This is a big step toward the goal of a game that features land and sea warfare together. A Canal takes 4-worker turns to complete and can '''''only be done on low-lands tiles, both of which become limiting factors to canal length. '7. Foreign Wonders.' Caravans/Freight can build Foreign Wonders. This increases the depth of diplomatic negotiation possibilities. One can offer a caravan or two in exchange for other deal terms. '8. Helicopters in Fortresses.' Helicopters may use Fortresses as bases to rest and repair. The limited movement of this unit and its loss of hit points every turn it's not stationed, create a dynamic where it is all-too-often reduced in hit points. Since it is not a true airplane and could easily land in a fortress for repair, why not fix the playability issue by allowing the realistic scenario where this unit is allowed to park in a fortress for repairs, instead of slowly dying when it's there? 9. Expelling. The ability to expel a foreign unit rather than kill it, has long been missing from game play. This feature increases diplomatic depth and options. The following units may be expelled from your nation, which sends them back to their home country: * Settlers, Well-Digger, Workers, Engineers * Diplomat, Spy * Caravan, Freight * Explorer * AWACS To expel an Air unit requires a Fighter or Stealth Fighter. To expel a Land unit requires any Land-based military unit except Warriors. Units on Mountains terrain may not be expelled. 10. Capturing. The ability to capture units adds extra depth and fun possibilities, especially in the early game where many people are too "hermetic." '''Capturing a unit converts its nationality to your own. The following units may be captured, which converts them into your own units: * '''Workers * Explorer * Caravan * Freight To capture a unit requires a foot soldier or mounted unit whose attack value is 3''' or higher. Units on Mountains terrain may not be captured. '''10. Steal Map Fragments. A portion of the explored world map of the target nation will be stolen, giving you vision of fragments of their world map. The fragments are not "chunks" or sub-regions, but rather, a sparse "speckled" revelation of the target nation's entire world map. Multiple thefts will successively reveal more and more of the target nation's map, with diminishing returns. This feature increases the richness of the game's diplomatic actions. Diplomats doing the action are spent, while spies have two choices: "Steal Map Fragments" and "Steal Map Fragments Escape." The former will spend the unit but have a higher chance of success (default base setting is 80%), while the latter has a 50% chance and a successful escape of the spy to the nearest domestic city. 11. Granary Food Storage Capped at 70 maximum. '''In MP1, the larger cities got, it became progressively more difficult to grow them in non-rapture governments. This is a deliberate and intentional dynamic that should be preserved. However, past 70 it becomes far too punitive against non-rapture governments, and a mere disadvantage becomes truly uncompetitive, unfeasible, and unbalanced. Capped at a grain store of '''70, a city with +3 food grows in: * 24 turns ... with no improvements * 18 turns ... with Pyramids * 12 turns ... with Granary * 6 turns ... with Granary and Pyramids Compared to rapturing every turn without needing Granary nor Pyramid, this remains a strong enough penalty for non-rapture governments. The net effect of this modification still preserves the classical mechanics, advantages and disadvantages of the distinct governments, while smoothing some extreme edges that were notoriously unfair and imbalanced.